Advertisement

Dismissal Procedures

Absent employees do constitute a problem for employers, particularly is the absence is frequently repeated. The employer is required, however, to ensure that the rights of absent employees are adhered to - before dismissing them from the company. Ivan Israelstam explains that the courts have repeatedly confirmed - an employee cannot dismiss themselves. So before taking the decision to dismiss an employee, it is necessary for employers to do everything possible to make contact with the absent employee, and to advise them of their rights to a hearing. 

Ivan Israelstam quotes from two cases of the same employer, with similar facts, but with different outcomes. Read carefully the facts that Ivan lays out to see how you would have acted in your company. 

This week Ivan Israelstam explains how a CCMA Arbitrator dealt with a dismissal where an employer mistakenly thought that an employee could "dismiss themselves" - and exactly what the mistake cost the employer. The employee "self-dismissal" was found to be both procedurally and substantively unfair.

This week Ivan Istraelstam explains all of the dispute resolution bodies, and the fees and costs for an employer who is found to have unfairly dismissed an employee.

As with all disciplines, labour law has its own terminology. What does "hiding behind the corporate veil" mean? Ivan Israelstam explains how employers sometimes seek to hide the true nature of a business practice, and how the CCMA, bargaining councils, and labour courts will respond.   

Employees may be hired on a variety of different forms of contract. This week Ivan Israelstam explains what the implications of the various contracts are, when employers are not happy with employee performance and seek to terminate the contract. 

When is a dismissal justified - and what circumstances need to be taken into account before an employer decides to dismiss an employee? Various courts have confirmed that the circumstances do matter. So it is not possible to simply state X action requires dismissal. Ivan Israelstam provides examples to illustrate how an employer should consider all the circumstances before coming to a decision.  

This week Ivan Israelstam answers the question: what is workplace fraud? Then he goes explain what employers need to be able to prove to sustain a case, when there is a dismissal dispute lodged at the CCMA.  

A disruptive employee can influence company performance, reduce productivity, and upset fellow employees to the extent that they may leave. It is important for employers not to ignore an incompatibiiy problem, and before dismissing an employee - ensure that evidence has been obtained to confirm that the employee is the source of the incompatibility. Ivan Israelstam quotes a number of cases that illustrate how employers have gone wrong in the past. 

Employers do sometimes find it difficult to prove at CCMA hearings the allegations they make against employees, who have been dismissed. One of the most common forms of evidence used in modern workplaces is camera videotape evidence.  However, this is not without problems. This week Ivan Israelstam quotes cases where the camera videotape type evidence has been challenged.  

Pages

Advertisement

Subscribe to Dismissal Procedures